Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant and his codefendant were apprehended about a block away from the crime scene, within 5 to 10 minutes from the time one of the two arresting officers heard the sound of broken glass and observed them escaping from the window of the complainant's house. Under these circumstances, the use of a showup identification was proper (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545; People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024-1025; People v Sansalone, 197 A.D.2d 549). Moreover, the fact that the defendant was identified while he sat handcuffed in a marked police car did not render the procedure impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Carbonaro, 162 A.D.2d 459; People v Burns, 133 A.D.2d 642).
We further find that the trial court's identification charge was adequate. The court properly instructed the jury on weighing the witnesses' credibility, and stated that identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v Thompson, 202 A.D.2d 454; People v Rodriguez, 130 A.D.2d 522).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.